1

Doug Norton, Watershed Branch AWPD/OWOW EPA Office of Water

October 2012

Recovery Potential Screening in Utah:

Tools for

State Planning and Prioritizing

2

What is Recovery Potential Screening?

A method to help states and restoration

planners compare restorability across all watersheds

• Origins in impaired waters program (TMDLs, 303(d) listing) • Broader audiences now, many states (watershed plans, nonpoint

source control, fisheries, restoration, teaming up with HWI)

• Systematic but very flexible approach

• Science-based, indicator-driven (GIS and field monitoring data)

ecological capacity,

exposure to stressors, and

social context affecting restoration efforts

3

• impaired waters prioritization: which watersheds (in a river basin or statewide) are more restorable and might recover quickly? • revealing level of difficulty: how do waters differ in recovery potential, and what factors are responsible? What am I up against? • TMDL implementation: how do waters with TMDLs appear to differ in restorability? which TMDLs are good prospects? • nonpoint source program strategies: how can considering restorability factors help watershed plans or statewide strategies?

• special interest projects: e.g., how does restorability differ across all nutrient impaired waters? across all urban waters? for fish restoration? among threatened waters?

How Recovery Potential Screening Is Used

4

Assumptions for Developing an Approach

• Numerous ecological and social factors are associated

with the relative ability to recover from impairment

• Data are available for measuring many factors (monitoring,

GIS data)

• Analyzing multiple lines of evidence from these metrics

reveals differences in restorability

• A systematic, repeatable comparison process is feasible

• Rapid, flexible methods for screening scenarios are needed

(vs. a single output that rigidly assigns priority)

• Systematic comparisons can be merged with expert

judgment in informing restoration planning

Recovery Literature Review

• over 1700 published papers

• identification of factors influencing or

associated with impaired waters recovery

• development of a cumulative literature

database

• EPA researchers key

role in design (Jim

Wickham, Tim Wade

NERL/RTP)

Where it started (2004)…

5 www.epa.gov/recoverypotential/

…and where we are now…

6

How does it work?

7

Recovery Potential Screening - Basic Concept

Ecological Index Stressor Index Social Index

Ecological metrics

Indicator 1

Indicator 2

Indicator 3

Indicator 4

Indicator 5….

Stressor metrics

Indicator 1

Indicator 2

Indicator 3

Indicator 4

Indicator 5….

Social context metrics

Indicator 1

Indicator 2

Indicator 3

Indicator 4

Indicator 5….

(Ecological + Social)

Stressor

8

RPS Ecological indicator types

• describe condition (physical structure, key processes) and implications

for capacity to regain function:

1. watershed natural structure

2. corridor condition

3. flow and channel dynamics

4. biotic community integrity

5. aquatic connectivity

6. ecological history

RPS Stressor indicator types

• describe condition (sources and stressors) and the magnitude of risk

they represent:

1. watershed disturbance & sources

2. corridor or shorelands disturbance

3. flow or channel alteration

4. biological stressors

5. severity, complexity of pollution

6. land use legacies

RPS Social indicator types

• these do not address ecological condition – they are societal factors that

influence restoration success: 1. leadership, organization, engagement 2. protective ownership or regulation

3. level of information, planning, certainty

4. cost, complexity

5. socio-economic factors

6. human health, uses, incentives

11

enter indicator names, weights paste in

raw data auto-calculated

auto-calculated

auto-calculated

RPS Auto-Scoring Spreadsheet Tool Creates statewide watershed scores spreadsheet in minutes, can vary

screening factors and weights, run many scenarios

12

Three Types of Recovery Potential Screening Products

(from the indicator scoring)

Rank Ordering

Bubble Plotting

Mapping

MASSACHUSETTS

RECOVERY POTENTIAL

SCREENING

Draft data,

for concept demo only RANK-ORDERED WATERSHEDS (4 OPTIONS)

Using Recovery Potential Screening Products

Comparing differences

14

Recovery Potential Screening:

RPS tools reveal impaired watersheds with good

recovery prospects, healthy watershed risks

Bubble Plotting Tool

simultaneously compares

differences in eco, stressor,

social RPS scores

• upper left impaired

watersheds are most like

healthy

• smaller healthy watershed

dots - poorer social score

may imply risk

15

Using Recovery Potential Screening Products

Communicating findings

Mapping

How can geographic settings influence selection of restoration priorities?

16

Recovery Potential Screening:

Locating best ‘expand/connect’ watersheds

Which restorations would most help meet healthy watershed goals by

expanding patch size and connecting corridors?

17

Highlight: Applying RPS in Nutrients Strategies

18

Recovery Potential Screening

Comparing nutrients-impacted watersheds

A simple starting point (re NP policy memo of 2011):

• Compare HUC8 watersheds statewide or

ecoregionally, based on nutrient load magnitude

• Within a priority subset of HUC8s, compare

differences in recovery potential among their

component HUC12s per watershed

• Invest effort in the HUC12s with the best

combinations of recovery potential and load

magnitude within each HUC8

19

MASSACHUSETTS

RECOVERY POTENTIAL

SCREENING

Draft data,

for concept demo only

Massachusetts

Prioritized HUC12 watersheds

for nutrient load reduction:

- Agricultural subset

- Urban subset

20

Recovery Potential Screening

Comparing nutrients-impacted watersheds

Maryland RPS Nutrients Example

(in response to USDA request for priority watersheds)

• Needed:

• systematic comparison of same metrics

• agricultural nutrients relevance

• restorability prospects

• social factors

Two draft statewide RPS screenings were completed between

lunch and mid-pm break at a states conference

Six screenings were completed, later refined, results used in

recommendations to USDA

21

Recovery Potential Screening

Comparing nutrients-impacted watersheds

Descriptions of MDE Watershed Screenings for optimizing selection based on Agricultural Risks and higher Recovery Potential

Screening Description

# Watersheds Identified of 94 total

# Qualifying watersheds also 303(d)

S1

Ag stressors above statewide mean and within top quartile of RP eco index 14 of 94 4

S2

Ag stressors above statewide mean and within top quartile of RP social index 19 of 94 16

S3

Ag stressors above statewide mean and within top quartile of RP eco index and RP social index 1 of 94 0

S4

Ag stressors above statewide mean and within top quartile of RP eco index or RP social index 32 of 94 17

S5

Ag stressors above statewide mean and within top 10 of RP eco index or RP social index 16 of 94 7

S6

Rank-ordered watersheds by >1 time identified in S1 through S5, and failed bioassessment (303(d))

33 of 94 scored at least once in 5

screenings 20

S6a

Rank-ordered watersheds by >3 times identified in S1 through S5, and failed bioassessment (303(d))

14 of 94 scored at least 3 out of 5

screenings 7

22

Comparing nutrients-impacted watersheds

Maryland RPS Nutrients-Based Watershed Screening Results

MDE8DIGT MDE8NAME S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

S6 TOTAL SCORE

FROM SYNTHs PASSFAIL

02130609 Furnace Bay 1 1 1 1 1 5 Pass

02131108 Brighton Dam 1 1 1 3 Pass

02140504 Conococheague Creek 1 1 1 3 Fail

02130507 Corsica River 1 1 1 3 Pass

02120202 Deer Creek 1 1 1 3 Pass

02140302 Lower Monocacy River 1 1 1 3 Fail

02140503 Marsh Run 1 1 1 3 Fail

02130306 Marshyhope Creek 1 1 1 3 Fail

02140301 Potomac River FR Cnty 1 1 1 3 Fail

02130508 Southeast Creek 1 1 1 3 Pass

02140105 St. Clements Bay 1 1 1 3 Pass

02130308 Transquaking River 1 1 1 3 Fail

02130203 Upper Pocomoke River 1 1 1 3 Fail

02130503 Wye River 1 1 1 3 Pass

02140305 Catoctin Creek 1 1 2 Fail

02140304 Double Pipe Creek 1 1 2 Fail

02120201 L Susquehanna River 1 1 2 Fail

02130506 Langford Creek 1 1 2 Pass

02130804 Little Gunpowder Falls 1 1 2 Pass

02130805 Loch Raven Reservoir 1 1 2 Fail

02130202 Lower Pocomoke River 1 1 2 Fail

02130509 Middle Chester River 1 1 2 Fail

02131106 Middle Patuxent River 1 1 2 Pass

02120203 Octoraro Creek 1 1 2 Pass

02140202 Potomac River MO Cnty 1 1 2 Fail

02140501 Potomac River WA Cnty 1 1 2 Fail

02130806 Prettyboy Reservoir 1 1 2 Pass

02131107 Rocky Gorge Dam 1 1 2 Fail

02130510 Upper Chester River 1 1 2 Fail

02140106 Wicomico River 1 1 2 Pass

02140502 Antietam Creek 1 1 Fail

02130403 Lower Choptank 1 1 Fail

02130908 S Branch Patapsco 1 1 Fail

23

EPA Office of Water

• project manager facilitates state input in design, uses

• indicator measurement and GIS dataset compilation (contractor)

• tech transfer/how to use screening tools with State’s dataset

State

• involve state programs in planning uses, selecting indicators

• provide state GIS sources

• receive tech transfer training, the database and tools

EPA Region

• ensure consistency with state/EPA program relationships

Outcome: State receives RPS data, learns user-driven tool

State RPS projects with EPA support

24

Thank you for your time!

Contact information:

Doug Norton, USEPA Office of Water

202-566-1221 or norton.douglas@epa.gov

Jim Wickham, USEPA ORD

919-541-3077 or wickham.james@epa.gov